Citation NR: 9605321
Decision Date: 02/29/96 Archive Date: 03/12/96
DOCKET NO. 93-01 468 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta,
Georgia
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
Heather J. Harter, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from October 1959 to
September 1962 and from October 1962 to November 1979.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The veteran contends service connection is warranted for
PTSD. He asserts that he experienced events outside the
range of usual human experience during the Vietnam era and
suffers from a resulting nervous disorder.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1995), has reviewed and considered
all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's
claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in
this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is
the decision of the Board that the veteran has not met the
initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a
belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claim for
entitlement to service connection for PTSD is well grounded.
FINDING OF FACT
It is not demonstrated that the veteran has PTSD.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD is
not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West
1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (1995).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The threshold question to be addressed is whether the
appellant has presented a well-grounded claim. If he has
not, his claim must fail and there is no further duty to
assist him because additional development would be futile.
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski,
1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). A well-grounded claim is one which
would justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual
that the claim is plausible. For a claim for entitlement to
service connection to be well grounded, there must be
competent evidence of current disability (a medical
diagnosis), evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a
disease or injury in service (lay or medical evidence), and
competent evidence of a nexus between the in-service injury
or disease and the current disability (medical evidence).
Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498 (1995).
Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence
establishing a clear diagnosis of the condition, credible
supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor
actually occurred, and a link between current symptomatology
and the claimed inservice stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)
(1995). In Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 91 at 97 (1993), the
United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) explained
that if the veteran engaged in combat and the claimed
stressor is related to combat, no further development for
evidence of a stressor is necessary. Where, however, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines that the
veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, or that the
veteran did engage in combat with the enemy but the claimed
stressor is not related to such combat, the veteran’s lay
testimony and/or written contentions, by themselves, will not
be enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged
stressor. Instead, the record must contain service records
which corroborate the veteran’s testimony as to the
occurrence of the claimed stressor. West v. Brown,
7 Vet.App. 70 (1994). The Court has held that the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is not bound to accept the
diagnosis of PTSD if the evidence of record does not
objectively support that diagnosis. Wood v. Derwinski,
1 Vet.App. 406 (1991).
The veteran has not presented evidence other than his own
written contentions which would establish that he has PTSD.
The service medical records available for review following an
exhaustive search for additional records directed upon
previous Board REMAND, do not reveal complaints or treatment
for a psychiatric disorder. He does not contend and the
records do not show any medical treatment for PTSD subsequent
to his discharge from service. No medical professional has
presented a diagnosis of PTSD in regard to the veteran. The
report of a VA examination conducted in January 1992 for
purposes of this claim concludes with the examiner’s
diagnosis of an anxiety reaction. The examiner specifically
ruled out PTSD as unsupported and not found upon clinical
examination.
The veteran asserts that he has PTSD resulting from
experiences in Vietnam. But, as a layperson, he is not
competent to establish the diagnosis of a psychiatric
disability and/or its etiology. Espiritu v. Derwinski,
2 Vet.App. 492 (1992).
In presenting this claim, the veteran has failed to establish
a clear diagnosis of the disability at issue. There is no
competent evidence that he has PTSD. In the absence of a
clear diagnosis of PTSD, it is unnecessary and, indeed, not
possible to proceed with an analysis of the other two
requirements for establishing service connection for PTSD,
i.e., authentication of the veteran’s claimed stressors, and
a showing of a link between the diagnosed PTSD and the
claimed stressor. The Board does note, incidentally, that
the record does not reflect that the veteran engaged in
combat. Consequently, if there was a clear diagnosis of
PTSD, to establish service connection for such disorder there
would have to be objective confirmation of the stressor on
which the diagnosis was based. Zarycki, supra.
Since the veteran has not shown that he has PTSD, his claim
for service connection for that disorder is not well
grounded.
ORDER
The claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD is
dismissed.
GEORGE R. SENYK
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, 741
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to
be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.
NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West
1991 & Supp. 1995), a decision of the Board of Veterans'
Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits,
sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of
notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of
Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board
was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or
after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act,
Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988). The
date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes
the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you
have received is your notice of the action taken on your
appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
- 2 -